[flagged]
Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
51–60 of 119 posts
Re: Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
#52Why is this a service and not an open source project? It doesn't seem to do much other than organize your commits within a PR (could be run once on a dev machine and shipped in the code, then displayed separately) and builds a dashboard for PRs that's not too far off from what github already offers, but could also be represented with fairly small structured data and displayed separately.
Open source is something we're thinking about! We've just been focused on building for now but its definitely not off the table
Translation: we're hoping for an acqui-hire from some rich company, and will opensource this thing if it flops.
Re: Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
#53Why is this a service and not an open source project? It doesn't seem to do much other than organize your commits within a PR (could be run once on a dev machine and shipped in the code, then displayed separately) and builds a dashboard for PRs that's not too far off from what github already offers, but could also be represented with fairly small structured data and displayed separately.
Plannotator, open source runs locally, has code review: https://github.com/backnotprop/plannotator
and a code tour feature about to ship: https://x.com/backnotprop/status/2043759492744270027/video/1
- integrated comment feedback for agents
- inline chat
- integrated AI review (uses codex and claude code defaults)
Stage (op product) navigation tour is nice UX, about a day worth of work in addition to the incoming code tour.
Re: Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
#54> Stage automatically analyzes the diff, clusters related changes, and generates chapters. Isn't that what commits are for? I see no reason for adding this as an after-thought. If the committers (whether human or LLM) are well-behaved, this info is already available in the PR .
In our experience, it's difficult to create well-mannered commits as you code and new ideas pop into your head or you iterate on different designs (even for LLMs). One concept we toyed around with was telling an LLM to re-do a branch using "perfect commits" right before putting up a PR. But even then you might discover new edge cases and have to tack them on as additional commits. We thought git wasn't the right leve…
> In our experience, it's difficult to create well-mannered commits
Sure, it is. But it's worth it, not just for code review, but for a myriad other things: bisect, blame, log, etc.
Your tool makes one thing (the code review) easier, while decreasing people's motivation to make well-mannered commits, thus making everything else (bisect etc) worse.
I'm sure it's net positive in some cases, and I think it's net negative in other cases.
Re: Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
#55Really like this idea. But at what point do you think its valuable to have this chapters breakdown versus splitting things up into multiple PRs?
Re: Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
#56Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but if I was going to have my team use this, I'd want someone to answer the following question
If AI is good enough to explain what the change is and call out what to focus on in the review, then why isn't AI good enough to just do the review itself?
I understand that the goal of this is to ensure there's still a human in the review cycle, but the problem I see is that suggestions will quickly turn into todo lists. Devs will read the summary, look at the what to review section, and stop reviewing code outside of things called out in the what to focus on section. If that's true, it means customers need to be able to trust that the AI has enough context to generate accurate summaries and suggestions. If the AI is able to generate accurate summaries and suggestions, then why can't we trust it to just do the review itself?
I'm not saying that to shit on the product, because I do get the logic behind it, but I think that's a question you should have a prepared answer for since I feel like I can't be the only one thinking that.
Re: Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
#57Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but if I was going to have my team use this, I'd want someone to answer the following question If AI is good enough to explain what the change is and call out what to focus on in the review, then why isn't AI good enough to just do the review itself? I understand that the goal of this is to ensure there's still a human in the review cycle, but the problem I see is that suggestions…
No worries at all, that's a very fair point and a question we've gotten a lot!
I think our perspective is that: software design has always had a subjective element to it. There's never been a "right" way to design a system, there are always trade offs that have to be made that depend on things like business context etc.
To that extent, most engineers probably still want to be part of that decision making process and not just let agents make all the high level decisions, especially if they're responsible for the code that ultimately gets merged
Re: Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
#58Why is this a service and not an open source project? It doesn't seem to do much other than organize your commits within a PR (could be run once on a dev machine and shipped in the code, then displayed separately) and builds a dashboard for PRs that's not too far off from what github already offers, but could also be represented with fairly small structured data and displayed separately.
Plannotator, open source runs locally, has code review: https://github.com/backnotprop/plannotator and a code tour feature about to ship: https://x.com/backnotprop/status/2043759492744270027/video/1 - integrated comment feedback for agents - inline chat - integrated AI review (uses codex and claude code defaults) Stage (op product) navigation tour is nice UX, about a day worth of work in addition to the incoming code…
this is for AI agent work though. That's cool, but not every team that wants better UX for complex work uses agents. Even if it "just works" for real scenarios, the marketing could be better.
Re: Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
#59Why is this a service and not an open source project? It doesn't seem to do much other than organize your commits within a PR (could be run once on a dev machine and shipped in the code, then displayed separately) and builds a dashboard for PRs that's not too far off from what github already offers, but could also be represented with fairly small structured data and displayed separately.
Open source is something we're thinking about! We've just been focused on building for now but its definitely not off the table
"Building" is always easier when you have a community that is ready and able to rout out bugs and suggest new features. Closed source makes that much less practical and appealing for most.
Re: Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
#60I was actually recently thinking about similar idea. I am someone who started coding post LLMs and have basic technical understanding. I know what loops, variables, API, backend bla bla is. I learned bunch more since then but I am not capable of making decisions based on git diff alone. And I want to. I want to because I think increasing my skills is still super important, even in AI era. The models are getting better, but are still limited by their core design -- for now it does not seem like they will replace humans.
So getting assistance in the review, in making the decisions and giving me more clarity feels interesting.
Maybe its people like me, who became involved into coding after the LLMs who might be your niche.
One thing I dont understand, the UI/UX? Is this visible only on git itself? Or can I get it working in Codex?